Part 5

In a word, as their _joy is great in believing_, who obey the Gospel of Christ; so the guilt and the terror is proportionably great, to disobedient believers. For, dreadful as _unbelief_ may prove in the issue to such as, through their own fault, have not come to the knowledge of Christ, _Belief_, without obedience, is more dreadful still. I have an apostle’s warrant for this assertion. _For it had been better for us not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after we have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto us[36]._

SERMON VI.

PREACHED NOVEMBER 16, 1766.

St. JOHN, xiv. 8.

_Philip saith to him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us._

Our Lord, being now about _to depart out of the world_[37], prepares his disciples for this unwelcome event by many consolations and instructions. He acquaints them, more particularly than he had hitherto done, with his own _personal dignity_. He tells them, that, _as they believed in God, they were also to believe in him_[38]; and that, although he should shortly leave them, it was only to remove from Earth to Heaven, to his _Father’s house_, where he should more than ever be mindful of their concerns, _and whither I go_, says he, _to prepare a place for you_[39]. And, to impress this _belief_ (so necessary for their future support under his _own_, and _their_ approaching sufferings) the more strongly upon them, He declares, in the most authoritative manner, _that he_, only, _was the Way, the Truth, and the Life; and that no man could come to the Father, but by him_[40]. Nay, to shew them how great his interest was, and how close his union, with the Father, he even adds, _If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also; and from henceforth_, continues he, _ye know him, and have seen him_[41].

This last declaration seemed so strange to his disciples, who had no notion of _seeing the Father_ in our Lord’s suffering state, or indeed through any other medium, than that of those triumphant honours, which their carnal expectations had destined to him, that one of them, the Apostle _Philip, saith to him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us_. As if he had said, “We know thee be a person of great holiness, and have seen many wonderful things done by thee; so that we cannot doubt but that thou art a prophet sent from God, for some great end and purpose of his providence. But if thy pretensions go so far as to require us _to believe in Thee, as in the Father_; if we are to conceive of Thee, as the only _Life_ of the world; of so great authority with God, as to procure _mansions_ in heaven for thy disciples; nay, of so great dignity in thine own person, as to challenge the closest _union_ and communication with the eternal Father; if, indeed, we are to believe such great things of thee, it is but reasonable, as thou sayest; that, _in knowing and seeing thee, we also know and see the Father_; that we have the clearest and most unquestioned proofs of thy divinity. _Shew us_, then, _the Father_; make us see the glorious symbols of his presence; present us with _such_ irresistible demonstrations of his power and greatness, as were vouchsafed to our Fathers, at the giving of the Law; _such_, as strike conviction on the senses, and overrule all doubt and distrust in so high a matter; _shew us_, I say, _the Father_, in this sense, _and it sufficeth_ to our persuasion and firm belief in thee.”

We see, in this conduct of the Apostle Philip, a natural picture of those inquirers into the truth of our religion; who, because they have not the highest possible evidence given them of it, (at least, not that evidence, which they account the _highest_) are tempted, if not absolutely to reject the faith, yet to entertain it with a great mixture of doubt and suspicion. “If Christianity, say they, were what it pretends to be, the arguments for it would be so decisive, that nothing could be opposed to them; if it were, indeed, of God, the proofs of its claim had been such and so many, that no scepticism could have taken place, no infidelity, at least, could have kept its ground, against the force of them.”

When this wild fancy comes to take possession of men’s minds, the whole tenour of God’s dispensations is quarrelled with, and disputed: every circumstance in our Lord’s history looks suspicious: and every _fact_, applied to the confirmation of our holy faith, rises into a presumption against it.

_The word of Prophecy_ has not been so clear and manifest, as it might have been: _therefore_, the proofs taken from it are of no validity. The miracles of Christ were not so public or so illustrious as might be conceived: _therefore_, they are no evidence of his divine mission. The scene of his birth and actions might have been more conspicuous: _therefore_, the light of the world could not proceed from that quarter. The Gospel itself was not delivered in that _manner_, nor by those _instruments_, which they esteem most fit; its _success_ in the world has not been so great, nor its _effects_ on the lives of men, so salutary, as might have been expected: _therefore_, it could not be of divine original.

But there is no end of enumerating the instances of this folly. Let me observe, in one word, that the greater part of the objections, which weak or libertine men have opposed to the authority of revealed Religion, are of the same sort with the demand in the text. The authors of them first _imagine_ to themselves, what evidence would be the most convincing; and then refuse their _assent_ to any other. Their constant language is that of the Apostle Philip—_shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us_.

Now, to see how little force there is in this sort of argumentation, let it be considered, that such high demands of evidence for the truth of the Christian revelation, are IMPERTINENT, at the best; that they are, most _probably_, on the part of the revealer, IMPROPER to be complied with; that they _must_ be, on the part of man, PRESUMPTUOUS, and unwarrantable.

I. All demands of this sort are clearly _impertinent_, and beside the purpose of a fair inquirer into the authority of a divine Religion. For the question is, whether such religion be not accompanied with that _evidence_, which is sufficient to determine the assent of a reasonable man; not, whether it be the highest in its kind, or in its _degree_, which might be imagined. There is an infinite variety, and, as we may say, gradation in the scale of moral evidence, from the highest forms of _demonstration_ down to the lowest inducements of _probability_. The impatient mind of man, which loves to rest in assurance, may demand the former of these in every case: but the just and sober inquirer, whatever he may wish for, will submit to the _latter_. He takes the argument, as presented to him; he weighs the moment of it; and if, on the whole, it preponderates, though but by some scruples of probability, against the inductions on the other side, he is determined by this evidence, with as good reason, though not with as much assurance, as by demonstration itself. His business, he knows, is to examine whether the conclusion be justly drawn, not whether it be irresistibly forced upon him. It is enough, if the proof be such as _merits_ his assent, though it should not _compel_ it.

Apply, now, this universal rule of just reasoning to the case of the _Gospel_. Consider it on the footing of that evidence, which it pretends to offer. If this evidence be weak and inconclusive in itself, let it be rejected. But, if it be sufficient to the purpose for which it is given, why look out for any _higher_? The pretensions of Christianity are, indeed, very great. It claims to be received by us, as the _work and word of God_. The proofs of its being such should, no doubt, be adapted to the nature of these pretensions. If, in fact, they be so adapted, all further attestations of its truth, all stronger demonstrations of its divinity (supposing there might be stronger) are, at least, _unnecessary_: our demands of them are without ground, and without reason: that is, they are clearly _not to the purpose_ of this inquiry. But

II. The _impertinence_ of these demands, is not all. There is good reason to believe, that they are, in themselves, absolutely unfit and IMPROPER to be complied with.

In saying this, I do not only mean that the _evidence_, such men call for, is so far mistaken as to be really of an inferior sort, and less convincing to a well-informed mind, than that which they reject. This, no doubt, is very frequently the case. It has been shewn in many instances, and even to the conviction of the objector himself, that such circumstances as have been thought most suspicious, such proofs as have appeared the weakest, have upon inquiry turned out, of all others, the strongest and most satisfactory. For example, they who object to the _mean instruments_, by which the Christian Religion was propagated, are confuted by the Apostle Paul himself; who has shewn _that very circumstance_ to be the clearest proof of its divinity; this method of publishing the Gospel having been purposely chosen, _that our faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God_[42]. And the same answer will equally serve to many other pretences of the like nature.

But, as I said, my intention is not, at present, to expose the common mistake of preferring a _weaker_ evidence to a _stronger_. Let it be allowed, that the evidence required is, in fact, the _stronger_. Still there is reason to think that _such_ evidence was not _proper_ to be given. And I argue, _from the nature of the thing_; and _from the genius of the Gospel_.

1. In _the nature of the thing_ it seems not reasonable that a divine revelation should be obtruded upon men by the highest possible evidence. This would be to _constrain_ their assent, not to _obtain_ it: and the very essence of religion consists in its being a _willing_, as well as _reasonable_ service.

Or, take the matter thus. On supposition that it should please God to address himself to man, it is to be presumed he would treat him _as_ man; that is, in a way, which is suitable to _the whole of his nature_. But _man_ is not only an _intelligent_ being, that is, capable of discerning the force of evidence, and of being determined by it: he is, also, a _moral_ being, that is, capable of making a right or wrong use of his liberty. Now put the case of an overpowering, irresistible evidence, and his _understanding_ is convinced, indeed; but the _will_, that other and better half of his composition, the spring of liberty and of virtue, this, with all the energies depending upon it, is untouched, and has no share in the operation. On the other hand, let the evidence submitted to him be such only as may satisfy his reason, if attentively, if modestly, if virtuously employed, and you see the whole man in play: his _intellectual_ powers are considered, and his _moral_ faculties, the faculties of a _wise and understanding heart_, applied to and exerted.

It seems, then, that, if a Revelation were given to man, it would most probably, and according to the best views we can form of the divine conduct, be given in this way; that is, in such a way, as should make it, at once, the proper object of his _faith_, and the test, I had almost said the reward, of his _merit_.

And such, we may observe, is the sense of mankind in other instances of God’s government. Who complains, that the ordinary blessings of Heaven, the conveniences and accommodations of life, are not ready furnished and prepared to his hands? Who does not think it sufficient, to our use and to God’s glory, that we have the powers requisite to prepare them? Why then expect this greatest of God’s blessings, a _divine Revelation_, to be made cheap in being forced upon us, whether we will or no, by an _evidence_, which silences reason, rather than employs it; and precludes the exercise of the noblest faculties, with which our nature is invested?

2. Thus, _the reason of the thing_ affords a presumption (I mean, if men will reason at all on such matters), that these high demands in religion are unfit to be complied with. But we shall argue more safely, in the next place, from _the_ GENIUS AND DECLARATIONS OF THE GOSPEL.

From the tenour of the Gospel-revelation we learn, that, though a _reasonable evidence_ be afforded of its truth, yet the author and publishers of it were by no means solicitous to force it on the minds of men by an _unnecessary and irresistible evidence_.

We see this in the conduct of our Lord himself, who refused to gratify the curiosity both of friends and foes by needless _explanations_[43], or supernumerary _miracles_[44]. We see it, further, in his general method of speaking by _Parables_[45]; which are so contrived as to instruct the attentive and willing hearer, but not the prejudiced or indifferent. Nay, when some of his parables were so obscure as that they might seem to require an explanation, he did not always vouchsafe to give it before the people, but reserved the exposition of them for _his disciples, in private_[46]. _To them_, only, _it was given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven_: others, were left to their own interpretation of his _Parables_[47].

This proceeding of Christ plainly shews that he was not anxious to _instruct_ or _convince_ in that _way_, which might appear the most _direct_ and _cogent_. It seems, on the contrary, to have been his choice to afford the strongest proofs of his mission and the clearest views of his doctrine to _those_, not whose incredulity needed his assistance most, but _who_, by their good dispositions and moral qualities, deserved it[48]. He thought not fit _to cast pearls before swine_[49]; and, as contrary as it may be to our forward expectations, it was a rule with him, that _he that hath, to him it should be given_[50].

That this was the genius of the Gospel, we further learn from the stress, which is laid on _Faith_. It is everywhere demanded as a previous qualification in the aspirants to this religion; it is everywhere spoken of as the highest moral virtue: a representation, strange and impossible to be accounted for, if men were to be borne down by the weight of _evidence_ only.

But, to put the matter out of all doubt, we have it declared to us in express words, that those converts are the most acceptable to Christ, who receive his religion, on a reasonable, indeed, but inferiour evidence. When the Apostle Thomas expressed his belief, on the evidence of _sense, Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed_[51].

Now, whatever occasion prophane men may take from this account of Gospel-evidence to calumniate the divine Author of our Faith, as though he relied more on the _credulity_, than the _conviction_ of his followers; whatever perverse use, I say, some men may be disposed to make of this circumstance; one thing, I suppose, is clear, “That the genius of the Gospel does, in fact, discountenance their _high demands_ of evidence.” So that, taking the Christian religion for _what it is_ (and for _such_ only, the rules of good reasoning oblige us to take it) it is very certain that no man is authorized to expect other or stronger proofs of its divinity than have been given. On the contrary, such proofs, as men account stronger, could only serve to weaken its evidence, and overthrow its pretensions.

III. Lastly, Though no _distinct reason_ could have been opposed to these high expectations in religion, yet common sense would have seen, “That they are, _in general_, PRESUMPTUOUS AND UNWARRANTABLE.”

For what man, that thinks at all, but must acknowledge that sacred truth, _that God’s ways are not as our ways_[52]; and that it is the height of mortal folly to prescribe to the Almighty? _What man is he that can know the council of God? Or, who can think what the will of the Lord is?—Hardly do we guess aright at things that are upon the earth, and with labour do we find the things that are before us: but the things that are in heaven who hath searched out[53]?_

Such passages as these have, I know, been sometimes brought to insult and disgrace REASON, when employed the most soberly, and in her proper office. But I quote them for no such purpose. I mean not to infer from these testimonies, that we are not competent judges of the evidence which is laid before us (for why, then, was it offered?); but, that reason cannot tell us, _what_ evidence it was fit for Heaven to give of its own councils and revelations. We may conjecture, _modestly_ conjecture, without blame. Nay the wisest and best men, and even angels themselves, have a reasonable _desire to look into_ these things: and their _speculations_, if duly governed, are, no doubt, commendable and useful. But we are not, upon this pretence, to dogmatize on such matters. Much less, may we take upon us to reject a _well-attested_ Revelation, a Revelation, that bears many characteristic marks, many illustrious signatures and impresses of divinity, because this or that circumstance, attending it, does not accord to our narrow views and shallow surmises. In short, men would do well to remember that it is no less a maxim of _reason_ than of Scripture, _that the things of God, knoweth no man but the Spirit of God_[54]: a _maxim_, we should never lose sight of, a moment, in our religious inquiries.

But this, though an _important_ consideration, is a common one, and I pursue it no farther. Let it suffice to have shewn, “That when, in matters of religion, men indulge themselves in _fancying_ what evidence would have been most convincing to them, and then erect such fancies into _expectations_, they are, at best, employed very _idly_:”

“That the worthiest apprehensions, we can frame of the divine wisdom, and both the genius and letter of the Christian religion, discountenance these expectations, as _improper and unreasonable_ to be complied with:”

And, “that, from the slightest acquaintance with ourselves, we must needs confess them to be _presumptuous_.”

The USE to be made of the whole is, _that men think soberly, as they ought to think_[55]; and that, if ever their restless curiosity, or some worse principle, impells them to make the demand in the text, _shew us the Father_, they repress the rising folly by this just reflexion, that they have no right, in their sense of the word, _to see the Father_.

Not but his infinite goodness hath vouchsafed to unveil himself so far, as is abundantly sufficient to our conviction. But then we must be content to _see him_ in that light, in which he has been graciously pleased to _shew_ himself, not in that _unapproachable light_[56] in which our madness requires to have him _shewn_ to us.

The evidences of Christianity are not dispensed with a penurious hand: but they lie dispersed in a very wide compass. They result from an infinite number of considerations, each of which has its weight, and all together _such_ moment, as _may be_, but is not easily resisted. To collect and estimate these, much labour and patience is to be endured; great parts of learning and genius are required; above all, an upright and pure mind is demanded. If, conscious of our little worth or ability, we find ourselves not equal to this task, let us adore in silence, and with that humility which becomes us. To call out for light, when we have enough to serve our purpose, is indeed _foolish_: but to make this noisy demand, when we have previously blinded our eyes, or have resolved to keep them shut, is something _more_ than folly.

After all, there is one way, in which the meanest of us may be indulged in the high privilege of SEEING _the Father_, at least, in the _express image_ of his Son. It is, by keeping the commandments. _He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them_, says our Lord himself, _I will love him, and will_ MANIFEST _myself to him_[57]. In other words, he will see and acknowledge the _truth_ of our divine religion.

SERMON VII.

PREACHED IN THE YEAR 1771.

ST. JAMES, iv. 1.

_From whence come wars and fightings among you? Come they not hence, even of your lusts that war in your members?_

Interpreters have observed, that these questions refer to the state of things, which then took place among the Jews, when this epistle was addressed to them. For, about that time, they had grievous _wars and fightings_ among themselves; every city, and every family, almost, of this devoted people, not only in Judea, but in many other countries, through which they were _scattered abroad_, being miserably distracted and torn asunder by civil and domestic factions.

This application, then, of the Apostle’s words to the Jews of his own time, seems a just one. But we need look no further for a comment upon them, than to that _hostile_ spirit, which too much prevails, at all times, and under all circumstances, even among Christians themselves.

The root of this bitterness, we are told, is in _the lusts, that war in our members_: that is, there is, first, an insurrection of our carnal appetites against the law of our minds; and, then, the contagion spreads over families, neighbourhoods, and societies; over all those, in short, with whom we have any concern, till the whole world, sometimes, becomes a general scene of contention and disorder.

For, ask the princes of this world, what prompts them to disturb the peace of other states, and to involve their subjects in all the horrors of war; and their answer, if they deign to give one, and if it be ingenuous, must, commonly, be, _their lust of conquest and dominion_. Ask the servants of those princes, what splits them into parties and factions; and they can hardly avoid answering, or we can answer for them, _their lust of wealth and power_. Ask the people, at large, and under whatever denomination, what occasions their contempt of authority, their disobedience to magistrates, their transgressions of law, their cabals and tumults, their hatred, defamation, and persecution of each other; and charity herself, for the most part, can dictate no other reply for them to this question, than that they are excited to all these excesses by _the lust of riot_ and misrule, or, of, what they call, LIBERTY.

But there is no end of pursuing this subject in all its applications to particular instances. What we have most reason to lament, is, that Christians not only _fight_ with each other, at the instigation of their _lusts_, for their own carnal and corrupt ends; but that they make the very _means_, which God has appointed to compose these differences, the instruments of their animosity, and become outrageous in their hostile treatment of each other, by the perversion of those _principles_, which were intended to be its restraint. For if any thing could appease this tumult among men, what more likely to do it, than the _administration of civil justice_, and the _sacred institutions of religion_? Yet, are even these provisions of divine and human wisdom, for the support of peace and good order, defeated by our restless and ingenious passions; and we contrive, to make RELIGION and LAW themselves, subservient to the increase of that contention, which they tend so naturally to keep out of the world.

As this abuse, which inverts the order of things, and turns the medicine of life into a deadly poison—as this abuse, I say, can never be enough exposed; let me represent to you some part of the evils, which this monstrous misuse of RELIGION and CIVIL JUSTICE has brought upon mankind; as the last, and most striking effort of these malignant _lusts_, from which, according to the holy Apostle, all our violations of peace and charity are derived.

And, FIRST, of the mischiefs, arising, from MISAPPLIED RELIGION.